The Court of Appeals, in a published opinion, issued Sieben Edmunds its latest victory today. The issue before the Court in Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety was whether our client Roger Johnson filed a challenge to his license revocation in a timely manner.
On April 23, 2015, the police illegally entered Roger Johnson’s garage and arrested him on suspicion of DWI. He was later charged with refusing to submit to a blood test. Shortly after refusing, Johnson suffered a medical emergency and was rushed to the hospital via ambulance. The officer attempted to revoke Johnson’s driver’s license for refusing the test, but did not give him the notice personally. Instead, the officer claimed to have placed the notice of revocation with Johnson’s belongings, which were supposedly sent along to the hospital with the ambulance driver. Johnson never received a copy of the notice and did not learn that his license had been revoked until months later. Upon learning of the revocation, Johnson filed a petition with the court asking for a hearing to address whether his license was lawfully revoked. The State of Minnesota argued, and the district court held, that because Johnson did not file his challenge within 30 days of the “notice,” he was not entitled to a hearing.
After hearing oral argument from Sam Edmunds in October, today the Court of Appeals overturned the district court and stated, “the evidence and findings do not support the conclusion that Johnson received a notice and order of revocation,” and therefore, the statute of limitations “was not triggered and Johnson’s Petition was not untimely.”
This holding allows Johnson the opportunity to go back to the district court and argue that the revocation of his license was improper. In the related criminal case, Kevin Sieben successfully convinced a judge to throw out the criminal charges based on the unconstitutional entry into Johnson’s garage.